Revolution of mindset, evolution of institutions, the need of hour for Constitutional supremacy

Revolution of mindset, evolution of institutions, the need of hour for Constitutional supremacy

On the
dawn of Independence, the founding fathers recognised with trepidation
the daunting task of converting this infant nation (historically, a
cluster of princely states) into a democracy, and a republic at that.

advertisement

Harish Salve

November 30, 1999

ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2012

UPDATED: December 22, 2012 15:57 IST

The blunt truth is that we haven't moved away from our feudal mindset.

On January 26, 1950, we the people of India gave unto ourselves a Constitution, having constituted ourselves into a sovereign democratic republic. The becoming of a republic has, in the ultimate analysis, eluded us more than anything else, and our political decay can be largely traced to this failure. We inherited some excellent institutions of governance from the English. What was needed was a change in orientation.

Harish Salve

On the dawn of Independence, the founding fathers recognised with trepidation the daunting task of converting this infant nation (historically, a cluster of princely states) into a democracy, and a republic at that. This would require an evolution not just of its institutions, but a revolution of its mindset.

Those who had governed the people-whether as civil servants or as uniformed officers representing the might of the Raj-would now have to serve the very people who they had dominated all these years. This transition would be all the more difficult in a society where the caste system dictates hierarchy and where people are used to accepting divisions in which some are superior to the other by the accident of birth, not by achievement.

While the evolution of our constitutional institutions has been a remarkable experiment in empowerment, the Raj culture of governance has not changed. We continue to use all the trappings of the Raj. Beacon lights, screaming sirens, and-if you are important enough-stoppage of traffic for your entourage are coveted symbols of office. The first significant office of civil service (in the states, the collectors, district magistrates) and the first elected offices (market committee chief) upwards, the reward of holding office is the beacon light. A few notches higher would earn you a personal security officer. The higher you go, the more your symbols-the highest recognition of having arrived being Y and Z security.

Delhi is surely not such an unsafe city that the Prime Minister cannot travel the short distance from his home to his office in the South Block without closing all the roads.

If the roads of Washington are safe for the US President and if the roads of London are safe for the British Prime Minister and the Queen, it is because their police have made those cities secure enough for them to travel, at least in the central areas, without much fuss. Our feisty former home minister P. Chidambaram busted the myth of a need for security by dispensing with his own security. And he was at that time heading the effort against not just terrorism but also Maoism.

The police can surely make a few roads of Delhi safe for VIPs to travel without closures. We citizens would feel more secure if we get to share the same space. There may be a need to stop traffic in some areas that cannot be fully secured on a regular basis. But it is hard to accept that even a handful of roads in the capital city, used daily by the VIPs, cannot be considered secure unless "sanitized?? by removing us lesser mortals. Besides, if the roads are so unsafe that a VIP in a bullet-proof car is insecure, then what about the rest of us?

The practice of closing roads was started in former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi's time in the late 1980s. In the three decades that have followed, we could have made at least the core of our national capital a safe place.

The situation in the states is worse. A minority commission chief was given police cover, which he was free to use as a private army, in the name of security.

The blunt truth is that we haven't moved away from our feudal mindset. We accept that those in office are here to rule, not to serve. Dynasty is a legitimate basis for electoral politics. It inconveniences us when roads are closed to allow VIP convoys to travel in the comfort of traffic-free roads. It insults our intelligence when we are told this is done purely as a measure of security.

The Central Government (in a PIL in the Supreme Court) justified the use of beacons by civil servants on the grounds that they were doing important work and thus needed priority in traffic! This perception, in the language of studied moderation, makes nonsense of the notion of a republic.

Democracy is a constant endeavour, and the political system does change-just that it needs a lot of noise of public resentment. Nehru spoke of our tryst with destiny. It will be a pipe dream unless we protest the violation of our constitutional fundamentals.

If nothing else works, the courts will again be troubled. But being an incorrigible optimist, I hope this time it will not be necessary.

-Harish Salve is a senior Supreme Court lawyer.

Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from